:-)

God the news is boring

Who knew lame duck presidencies would be so lame? I guess I should write a bit about the Israeli bombing... but even that's pretty boring from an analysis point of view.

Until I get around to writing that short post... I'm taking bets on whether this guy's predictions come true:

Check it out


I'll give you 4 to 1 even.

Step right up!

Some more predictions... not quite as fabulous but still interesting.

On suggestion

I'd like to nominate a top 10 songs that everyone should hear before they die. This is very much off the top of my head, so please add additions and objections in the comments. This list is intentionally eclectic and is deliberately held to no standard other than the normative.

In no particular order

1) Let it Be - The Beatles


2) Piano Man - Billy Joel (The link is to the music video, but it won't let me embed)


3) Sympathy for the Devil - Rolling Stones (See Blood Sweat and Tears Cover)


4) Comfortably Numb - Pink Floyd


5) Jungleland - Bruce Springsteen


6) Roadhouse Blues - The Doors


7) Something in the Way She Moves - James Taylor


8) You Are my Sunshine - Johny Cash, Bob Dylan


9) Graceland - Paul Simon


10) Africa - Toto (See Andy McKee for one of the most amazing things ever)


Honorable Mention: Thunder Road - Bruce Springsteen

Bail-out is likely dead

The Senate couldn't bring itself to give the car companies a 14 billion dollar loan.

I guess this means that they'll likely file for bankruptcy. Most likely will hurt worse than the extra debt in the short-term. Long-term is harder to say.

I'm really out of thoughts on this one. Nobody agrees with anything except that we'd like the economy to be better. It's tough to say whether government action is helpful in accomplishing that goal. For now the auto industry appears to have been judged and been found(left) wanting.

Sorry Michigan, your unemployment rate is likely to bump above 15% soon.

Senate seat for sale!

Only 2500 bucks apparently for a seat in the Senate. Okay, we don't really know how much governor Rod Blagojevich was asking... and he's not convicted yet anyway. With that disclaimer out of the way, wow! Typical Chicago politics, eh? Good thing we don't elect folks from Illinois for major public office, imagine the sort of things they would have to do to succeed in an environment like that? I mean, one would have to attend the right revolutionary theology church, pay homage to the right radical and make sure to pay off the right real estate crook just to have a shot at being elected to state office...

Okay, that was a bit of a cheap shot. And, I assume every politician is corrupt so I'm not terribly offended when one gets caught.

Still the question presents itself: will this have an effect on the Obama presidency? It is 'his' senate seat, his party's governor and early supporter of his campaign. So guilt by association applies.

The quick answer to whether or not this will hurt Obama is "no." A few reasons:
1) Nobody natoinally knew who this governor was before just now, so the fall from grace isn't really that far. Thus, can't pull Obama down too far either.
2) Obama is not in state politics anymore, he's distant enough to say "who's that guy?" without any problem.
3) Obama's still coated with Teflon. There's no way something that doesn't directly link Obama with aproving of the governor's "sale" will actually hurt him because he's too well liked. E.G.: Reagan during Iran-Contra. He can get away with a simple denial because most want to believe him.
4) This governor was very unpopular before he was corrupt - Obama is popular - they clearly have nothing to do with each other...

I could list another dozen reasons but you get the theme, Obama's too popular, too far removed and too slick for this to even be remembered outside of circles that already hate him.

It's been a bad week for the governor of Illinois, but not so bad for Obama. I predict it will stay contained to Blagojevich's office and maybe those folks who were putting in bids if the prosecutor can prove it. Obama should simply deny deny deny and then demand that everyone "move on with the business of the country" and he will be fine.

He could also distract the public with this story from Japan

The Transition

The last few weeks of political action have been fairly dull compared to the election. Though one thing that is slightly different is happening and is worth a note: Obama is getting his administration together FAST.

Neither Bush nor Clinton had all his cabinet secretaries picked out by inauguration day. Most new presidents tend to ease into the job. Only GHW Bush has ever had anything close to the pace of Obama's transition and that is because he was basically an incumbent.

Why is Obama moving so quickly? And why has not there been a single leftist named to a Cabinet position?

I believe that Obama has only one true goal: to succeed. I'm convinced that he is putting together a "team of rivals" for reasons more akin to Bill Clinton's politics than Lincoln's. He wants to have a presidency that the historians judge to be a good one. It means that he will be risk-adverse, non-ideological and calculating. This is not a criticism, there have been Presidents who have had the same philosophy of government that have been very successful, such as Franklin Roosevelt. When analysing his reasoning it's important to keep in mind that he is most often not doing things because he believes that they are "right." Rather he is doing things because he believes that they are "best."

To explain his haste with picking his cabinet we can divide his reasoning into two categories: Practical and Political.

Practical:

GW Bush is one of the lamest of lame ducks and there is a strong public demand for governance. Bush is not able to provide because he has been politically castrated. This is a problem beyond a normal end-of-term president because he has become so independently unpopular and things have gone poorly. As always the blame and credit sticks to the president. So while there are and will be defenders of the Bush legacy for now his efficacy is lower than a worm's belly.

This means that Obama is being looked to for leadership. He doesn't have power, and sure as heck Bush isn't going to give him the reigns one day earlier than he has to but Obama has the opportunity to set out all the ground work for a policy agenda before he actually takes office. This requires clear indications of who is in charge and who holds the power, thus he nominates his cabinet earlier than most presidents to cement his roll as leader and enable him to get off to a running start.

Political:

Obama has another challenge during this transition. Maintaining the political mandate to govern. The Republican Party is, for now, deep into its "loyal opposition" role. The Republicans were offended by Democrats that were so "disloyal" during the Bush administration and believe that they can teach them a lesson in proper decorum by refusing to use the same tactics. Republicans are wasting if they think that anyone is going to give them credit for being nice. Calling the president a "liar and a murder" on the floor of the congress is far more effective at alienating the public than saying he's got a "different opinion." Still, the Republicans are so far refusing to lower themselves to actually attacking Obama and it is something Obama should not take for granted. The Republicans are basically telling Obama that as long as he doesn't offend them, he will have a free(ish) hand. Obama has strengthened his position vis-a-vis the Republicans by acting quickly to set up his administration before they can decide they want to be harsher with their criticism.

Also, he's nominating a bunch of big named moderates. No Senate will even debate the confirmation of Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates or any of this other picks so far. They could pass his whole Cabinet by voice vote on a slate. He's trying not to pick fights over his advisers by tapping folks that have a political base beyond his own. This allows him to co-opt some of the possible opposition leadership and force everybody else to pay tribute to him for making picks that are beyond his assumed comfort area... thus singling that he is open to advice even from those with whom he disagrees. Leftists among his picks would make the whole process slower and riskier because they might encourage opposition from the right. At the moment Obama has nothing to fear from the left because he is still their golden child, so for expediency's sake they're being ignored so that he can get his administration running ASAP. The moderates will help Obama fill the leadership vacuum in Washington more quickly because there'll be no debate over their confirmation. Obama is counting on the fact that the President sets policy and governs not the secretary of State or Defense to defend himself from being out-flanked from the left in coming years... and he's probably safe in doing so.

GM

GM

To bail out or not to bail out, that is the question.
Whether 'tis better in the economy
to suffer the expense and burden of outrageous union contracts
or take up bankruptcy against the risk of greater losses
and defaulting end the debt. To default to reverse --
No more -- and by bankruptcy to say we end
the bad business, and the thousands of pensioners at the gates
that demand satisfaction for their years of hard work.
'Tis truly a consumption
devoutly to be wished: Bankruptcy or Bailout?

Okay, not sure why I felt the need to rip off an ol' Englishman but I find the whole issue tiring. But lacking anything else really interesting to write about and no post for a few days I'll go over this beyond the simple fact that sometimes the economy goes to hell, and sometimes big, crummy, businesses go under too. Less than a decade ago it was the airlines that needed out from under their union contracts that were unsustainable. On principle, I don't have a problem bailing out the auto industry. I do have a few problems with this auto industry. The big 3 have screwed up their business by the numbers.

Sure, parts of it are at least explainable. The Michigan legislature is a bought and paid for subsidiary of the United Auto Workers. When management has tried to fight the union the government has always taken the side of the workers... which again, is fine, in general. Except when the demands of a union threaten to put the business as a whole out of action and leave everybody, including the workers, without jobs. Still, the first and major fault lays with management. It is their responsibility to prevent this from happening, they make millions of dollars for their "talent" in managing labor and legislatures. They failed, it's more their fault than anybody else.

Now that we know who to blame... we have a problem to solve. It's likely that letting GM, Ford and Chrysler go under will cost the government more than any bailout. Analyzing it as a matter of adding to the debt or inflation etc. actually might argue for a bailout. So, on the one hand, bailing out the auto makers will save the economy money in the short and probably even medium term. On the other hand continuing the unsustainable labor contracts will just have the auto industry back on the hill hat in hand. The only legal method for the auto industry to get out from under the current contracts is bankruptcy.

Unfortunately, bankruptcy has a few nasty side effects that might be better termed as "effects." First, sales will suck. Who wants to buy a car form a company that is has its debtors seizing color printers from the head office for sale at pawn shops? Obviously, that's an exaggeration, but the market share of the Japanese car makers will still go up with a bankrupt GM and that's not market share that's likely to return. The dirty truth is that Toyota makes better cars for less. When GM is paying north of $70/car on health benefits for workers and retirees in Michigan and Toyota pays just over $40/car in Alabama it is a very powerful advantage. GM cars cost more and are, frankly, lower quality. This is only effectively offset by national loyalty to "American Made." In the current penny pinching atmosphere I seriously doubt people will feel obliged to pay extra for pride. Second, it murders the company's credit. Cars need financing, if the company is not able to maintain a high stock price, borrow money and sell bonds they won't have the cash to give to customers who want to buy cars. Cash flow is impossible in bankruptcy because any free assets can be claimed by debtors. Sure, the courts can protect some liquid assets but that is a huge expense unto itself. Thirdly and finally, who is big enough to finance a auto-industry bankruptcy anyway? It isn't going to be Citibank that's for damned sure. The fact is that it would have to be the government that would provided protection regardless. The bankruptcy would just cost more albeit with the advantage of breaking the Union.

So on the pro column for bankruptcy we have the breaking of the UAW... pretty tempting. On the con column a much larger government expense than a bail out... pretty terrible. Bad and worse. Without being a real economist (I just play one on the Internet) I'm not going to guess. Go to somebody that you trust and take their judgement. Here are a few articles proposing one solution or another:

The Big Three Make Their Play John Steele Gordon

U.S. automakers deserve a bailout By Gregg M. Sherrill

Auto Bailouts Will Give Us Detroitsky By Robert Tracinski

Why the Dems' Drive to Aid Detroit Is Stalling Out By Jay Newton-Small

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt - Mitt Romney

Why GM Deserves Support Short-term government backing can preserve a vital industry.By RICK WAGONER

In Detroit, Failure's a Done Deal By George Will

Who's next?

As in Republicans. Who will run for President for that grand ole party now that it has lost two elections in a row?

First, let us get one thing very straight, the Republican party is not dead. It won't be dead. It will come back and win an election again sometime in the future. Nothing in politics lasts forever, just ask Tom Delay.

With that said it's time for some wild speculation:

The contenders:

Sarah Palin.

Plus,
Name recognition! Everybody knows her and she's a star! How is it possible that Palin, the loser #2 has managed to get more press than the actual winner of the election? Really, there have been more media stories about Palin's wardrobe than Obama's tax plan. Like it or not she is interesting and most of those who are close minded and hate her would not ever vote for her. Out from under the McCain campaign she may well be a very different candidate. She was the person who raised taxes in Alaska, passed gay civil union rights and destroyed the Republican party in Alaska. She's not just a little responsible for Young's close call and Stevens possible loss. Before she started screaming corruption I suspect the Democrats in Alaska and investigators would never have asked the questions they did. Finally, why not Palin? She's a populist Republican woman who is probably still the most popular person among conservatives.

Minus,

Women hate her. It's shocking, a bit of eat your own in this case, but the fact of the matter is her pro-life politics are far more of a problem for her than they would be for a man. Where as abortion is not a terribly important issue in American politics any longer, it seems to follow Palin and kills her among self identified feminists. That creates a real problem. Women tend to be less partisan and vote more often. Where woman might be gettable for the right Republican man, ironically they're more closed to Palin. She's also a conservative who refuses to apologize which makes her hated by the media. The bald-faced nature of the media's preference for Obama this year and hate of Palin is a real problem. Palin can turn this issue to her advantage but the constant drum beat of vitriol towards one person is difficult to over come over the course of months. Just ask Hillary Clinton what she thinks of the mainstream media.

Chances,

Pretty good. She's got to keep her head down, keep Alaska working well and try not to get dragged down by the loss against Obama. I'd say she's got a better than 50/50 shot of ending up in Washington as a leader of the party eventually. Don't count on 2012 for sure... but also remember that she's in her 40's and that she's got plenty of time.

Romney

Pluses,

He's vetted and suave. He is a well spoken, hansom and undeniably able dude. The fact that there are probably not many skeletons in his closet also helps him. He was generous to McCain when he lost the primary and managed to keep his nose clean though out the general election. He's also fabulously independently wealthy which might help off-set the fact that the Democrats have become the party of riches. Finally, the conservatives have to support him. The 3 week rally to Romney by the radio hosts and Evangelists at the end of the primary inoculates Romney from the right. If Sean Hannity starts in on Romney for flip-flopping on abortion or gay rights he'll be contradicting himself. Finally his expertise is in the economy! That is the most important political issue and will stay that way. He can credibly criticize anyone on that front and will benefit.

Minus,

He's very slick. The produced and polished candidate makes some folks nervous. He also has a record that is pro gun control, abortion and gay rights. That might make him more viable in a general election but vulnerable from the right. It translates into an enthusiasm gap. He's perfect... almost too perfect. So folks don't get too excited for him. Then again, give him 4 years in the public light for folks to gain confidence in him and he might end up shedding these problems.

Chances,
Good, he did lose. He also has a life. I think he's the most likely Republican to throw his hands up and decide he's just not ambitious enough to bother. The family, money and time that a retired multi-millionaire has at least a decent chance of making him not bother to turn in his paperwork to run for president in 2012.

Mike Huckabee

Pluses,

He's well spoken, has a good record as a governor and is a true member of the base of the Republican party. Unlike Palin, or Romney there is no twist to Huckabee. Look up Republican in the dictionary and there you have it, a picture of Mike. This will help him in the primary and will help him because he doesn't have to worry about answering questions about being a hypocrite.

Minuses,

He's a bit nutty! He's gotten on a few strange policy schemes such as a national sales tax and an anti-abortion amendment. While I doubt he would actually use these things as issues in an election it does make him vulnerable to the accusation that he's on the fringe of politics. That makes it possible to marginalize him and then dismiss him. He just doesn't fight like a heavy weight. He might fix this over time but for now it's a temperament issue. He's not presidential.

Chances,

I think pretty poor. The Republican party is not moderating so that's not his real problem. What the Republican party is going to do is reemphasize it's point of view on the economy, role of government and taxes rather than values. With the spotlight moving away from wedge issues such as gays, guns and bibles the Huckabee isn't as attractive.

Bobby Jindal

Pluses,

He's not a white male. Seriously, novelty votes matter. Look at all the folks who stated that they voted for Obama because he was making history not because of his policies. Right or wrong being a non-white male is now a plus in American politics. Shocking right? He's also got a very strong record in Louisiana. That state was a wreck after a decade of one party rule and he's done a good job of cleaning it up. His role during the hurricanes this summer was widely lauded and it is not possible to paint him with the "Bush Brush" because he came into power in 2006. He's also got plenty of time to build whatever ideological platform he wants. The advantage of low name recognition is that he gets to make himself from scratch. Obama did this very effectively, so can Jindal.

Minuses,

He's very young. While well spoken and suave he's got very little experience on the national stage. His time working on hurricane relief bodes well for him, but it's just not a sure thing. The fact is that the Republican party does appreciate comfortable faces and experienced hands. Reagan didn't get the nomination the first time he ran despite being very popular. It's a bit easier to engineer a meteoric rise in the Democratic party ideologically. Still, look for Jindal. If he goes for it, I believe he's got a shot.

Chances,

Fairly low. First, he might not even try. He's got a decent thing going in Louisiana and might step up to a different post than President. Just keep an odd eye on him. He is in Iowa this week...

Words of 2008: a postmortem

Front Runner
Democrat
Senator
Hillary
Caucus
Fund raising
Experience
Change
Iraq
Surge
Republican
Bush
Pant-suit
Edwards
Iowa
Obama
"thrill up my leg"
Huckabee
Romney
Tears in New Hampshire
Comeback
Primaries
McCain
South Carolina
Super Tuesday
Proportional allotment
Concession?
Debate... Debate... Debate...
A speech in 2004
Resco
Chicago
Bill
Petraeus
Racism
Sexism
Wright
Internet money
registration
Indiana and North Carolina
Pennsylvania and Ohio
Texas, Nebraska and Nevada
indecision: March... April... May... June... July...
Concession.
Public Financing
Euro Trip
Hero
Celebrity
Old
Inexperienced
Wrong
Hope
Maverick
Historic
Global warming
Gas Prices
Pickens Plan
Drill Baby Drill
Off Shore Oil
Alternative Energy
Convention
Biden
Gaff
Greek Columns
Palin
Lipstick
Pig
Hockey Mom
Trigg
Snow Machine
Media Bias
Gotcha!
Feminism
-777
Credit Crunch
Bail out
Paulson Plan
700 billion
"Suspending My Campaign"
Debate? - Debate.
Reid
Pelosi
Frank
Boehner
Dodd
Recession
Housing Bubble
Liquidity trap
Erratic
Leadership
Ayers
Taxes
Redistribution
Polls
Super Majority
Senate
House
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Florida
Ohio
Virgina
North Carolina
364
President

Please feel free to point out any omissions in the comments.

So, fellow citizens, now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country

Congratulations to Barack Obama.

It is now the duty of us all to acknowledge his victory and support his administration. I have serious disagreements with Obama's proposed polices on taxes, the economy and foreign relations. However, he deserves a fair chance. No one should doubt that he is our president and I am openly hopeful that he will prove me wrong.

This is a Democracy that requires peaceful transfers of power. It is time for all of us to rally to Barack Obama and give him a fair shot. No one should commit the same sin as many did in making a demagogue of President Bush in 2000 before he had spent a day in office. Obama deserves our praise, and our deference, regardless of whether we voted for him or not. If he doesn't succeed there is another election in 2010. Until then, it's his show.

"It's all over but the dying" (voting) a election night watching guide

The election is today, as you likely know. I encourage you all to go out and vote. It would appear that those incredible turn-out numbers that some of the polls were assuming might actually happen. That's bad for John McCain.

How you can tell who won by 4:00pm

If John McCain doesn't win Indiana by more than 7 or 8 points... you can be pretty sure Obama will win.

If Obama wins Virginia by more than 4 or 5 points, you can be very sure he'll win.

If McCain doesn't win North Carolina by 4 or 5 points you can be very sure Obama will win.

We should have a very good guess about who is our winner by about 4:00 pm.

If we do have to wait until 5:00pm watch Ohio and Pennsylvania. Obviously if Obama or McCain win both it'll be a big boost to either of them. Though if they split check out the margins. If either of them is not close favor the person who managed to win big to win Florida and end the election at 5:00pm when the panhandle closes.

If, shockingly, we get past 6:00pm without a really clear idea who will win it'll be 7:00pm when Colorado and New Mexico come and probably clinch things things.

It is only very slightly possible that we'll still not know for sure at 8:00pm when Nevada truly must be decisive.

Good luck to your guy!

Polling and you, a guide #2

Messing up a poll

The first, and least common method of queering a poll's results is in the question. For example a questions such as "Do you support the war criminal John McCain who bombed civilians in Vietnam or the civil rights hero Barack Obama who wants to give you $500 if he's elected?" would tend to produce a result favorable to Obama. This is an extreme question, however there are more subtle hints such as "Do you favor Senator Obama or John McCain?" Just leaving the honorific off of McCain's name will tend to help Obama in a poll. This is the oldest, and crudest method of manufacturing favorable data and is frankly out of date. Pollsters today don't rely on such brute force methods of massaging data... instead they massage samples, as discussed above, by arguing who is a "likely voter" and who is not.

It gets complicated....

As if it wasn't already tough enough to follow. Unfortunately, polls have more uses than predicting the winner of an election. The most common is fund raising. People prefer to give money to a candidate who is winning and will have influence. Those who are seeking influence though their dollars want to spend their money on somebody who will actually have power. Giving money to a candidate who then loses negates any possible influence. This phenomena is why so many big interest groups give money to both candidates... just so that they can say in a lobby somewhere that they supported whoever actually gets elected. Polls fit into this because the campaign can cite them when soliciting money. Imagine a call to the CEO of a industrial farming interest that says "look, this polls says that I'm beating the other guy by 20 points, there's no reason to give money to him and ever reason to give it to me."

Obviously, this second use for polls encourages corruption. Because polls are subject to the whims and judgment of the pollster it is very easy to twist the numbers based on "assumptions" that have their motives in producing a result to raise money rather than an accurate picture of the electorate. The polling organizations are also subject to lobbying by the candidate and simple rooting interests. If a pollster has a biased view of the electorate that is in the gray area where numbers have to be replaced with judgment (for example how many new voters aged 18-20 will actually cast their ballots) the final numbers can be wildly different from another pollster who uses the opposite assumptions. This is why the NYT/CBS poll has Obama up 14 points while Gallop had him up only 3 points last week. The math would suggest that there is something greater than 1 in a million chance that those two numbers could be generated from surveying the same electorate... yet because of all the adjustments that these polls use they end up with those very different results from the same population.

So, if you're trying to use polls to figure out who's winning you have to decide who you trust.

First, throw out most any news organization that runs its own poll. Most news outlets have their biases, are inexperienced (thus tend to take "advice" from campaigns) and are interested in creating news (so will build polls that end up with extreme results). Two examples of news organizations that I suspect of trying to "make news" are the NYT poll cited earlier that had Obama up by 14 and the AP poll last week that had Obama up only 1 point. I frankly think they're both worth throwing out.

Trust the professionals in general. And of the professionals you want to watch those polls that advertise and take pride in getting as close as possible to actual outcomes of elections. These firms make their money by getting it right, not by promoting one message or another. Often campaigns will employ two polling organizations. A public and an internal. The public poll is, frankly, an arm of the media campaign that also runs commercials and raises money by using TV, Internet and radio. It's job is to provide "facts" that promote the candidate. The internal pollster is often a tightly kept secret that is charged with providing an accurate picture of the election to the campaign strategists. Firms like Rasmussen, Zogby and Gallop are often subcontracted as internal pollsters. They never disclose which campaigns they're working for, but that is how they make most of their money. Their public polls are advertising for their internal polling contracts. In this way they have incentives to try to get it just right, regardless of who'd they prefer to see win.

Even these ostensibly more accurate polls can be wildly wrong. Zogby is the most notorious for having such a complicated polling procedure that he mathematically prejudices his results. Basically, he makes so many adjustments, tweaks and compensations (such as those discussed in the post below) that his numbers bear very little resemblance to the original survey data. Remember, every one of these little twists of the numbers might get the reported numbers closer to reality... but they also increase the chance that the poll will be really far away from reality. The danger of tweaking the numbers cuts both ways. So, the famed "margin of error" which is usually reported using the chi-squared of the sample as if it wasn't hand picked, tweaked, and otherwise molested, is in reality often far greater than 3 or 4 points. Mind blindingly this is a mathematical reality without a real utility. Because pollsters who are good at their jobs will often put the right tweaks in, choose the correct samples, and massage the numbers the appropriate direction they will report numbers that can be well within what one would expect with a normal chi-squared analysis simply by making good educated guesses. So, more error, but more accurate poll. Screwy right?

Finally, something to remember about all these folks who love to tell you the electoral vote count based on state polls. Ignore them! At least for the most part. Those state polls are rarely done by the sort of professional organizations needed to get a good idea about where voters will actually come down. If the margin is less than 7 or 8 points you can consider it a toss up. Also, those polls are usually taken over the course of a week or so. Because of this, the conditions of the campaign will have changed from the beginning of the poll to the end. This really messes up the results. Finally, state polls are not taken every day. Because events can drive polls one way, and then the other in the course of a day or two they usually aren't capturing much data that is actually interesting. It's best to just watch the national numbers, and then apply it to geographical regions that are "swing" within the states to get a guess at the EC. Also remember, only twice has the EC gone a different way than the popular vote. Barring a once every 100 years or so occurrence those state counts really don't tell you anything more than the national polls, and the national polls tend to be more professionally done and timely.

Ok, some truths to remember about polls... all polls

-They aren't true, they're a reflection of a truth a the time.
-They are all subjective educated guesses based on what the pollster believes not hard facts
-Combining polls does not make for a more accurate poll
-Not all polls are designed to truthfully describe the electorate be a cynic - if it looks to good to be true it probably isn't
-Trust the professionals who have economic reasons to be accurate. Doing a good poll is very hard, of the big firms only Rassmussen, Zogby, Gallop and Investors Business Daily were within 2 points of both the 2000 and 2004 election.
-Do not trust universities, news outlets, or small state-wide firms. These folks will often have undiagnosed biases, ulterior motives, or too little experience to come up with a good result. The University of Chicago and Pew are exceptions to this general rule... even though Pew had a really screwy poll recently.

Last thought:
Be cynical! Polls are not votes, don't expect anything and don't be upset if polls end up wrong. The one, best and only important poll is on November 4th, it's got such a large sample size that the margin of error is so small it can be dismissed.

Polling Post #1: What's in a poll?

So I figured I'd better get this done before it was too late.

Polls are tough. As I'm sure you've noticed they tend to disagree, sometimes wildly. How could two polls, both conducted using "scientific" standards be so different? This question is one not simple. Actually, it's complicated enough that I've dreaded writing this post because I'm afraid it will blow up into a 5000 word expository essay saying effectively nothing. However, I'll try to be brief and split this into two parts.

A political poll is a scientific sample of the electorate that is designed to predict who the entire population will vote. A few quick rules to remember.

-No poll is perfect, even the most honest and perfectly conducted poll will have between a 3 and 6 point margin of error. This is mostly because the sample is only a representation of the population not the population in reality.
-Every poll uses different methodology that greatly affects the outcome of the survey. It is not hard to quite justifiably create a poll that reports a seemingly wildly inaccurate representation of the electorate.
-Mixing polls is not a great way to really get a sense of what is right. Because methodology is very different from poll to poll things like the Realclearpolitics.com average of the polls is interesting but not any more informative than any individual poll... and less informative than a single well conducted poll would be.

With that I have to ask: Where to start?

Registered voters vs Likely voters:

The first thing to look at when you're confronted with a poll is whether it is sampling registered voters, or voters the pollster considers likely to actually cast their ballot. The registered voter survey means that the pollster usually asks a very simple question often "If the election were held today, would you vote for Barack Obama or John McCain?" (they'll rotate who's name is read first) The likely voter poll uses the same question but applies dozens upon dozens of handicaps to attempt to discern who will actually vote, and to account for known deficiencies in polling procedure.

Common "adjustments"

So, when considering likely voters the first, most obvious thing to look for is voting history. Usually this is determined by how many times the person being polled has voted out of their last 4 or 6 opportunities. The Democratic party pollsters tend to favor 6, the Republicans favor 4... I've never been given an explanation as to why. Based on voter history different respondents will be given more weight in the poll. Whereas the average voter is worth 1 point in a poll those who are more likely to vote are weighted higher and less likely to vote is weighted lower. For example, a person who is polled who has voted in 4 out of the last 4 elections is very likely to vote in this election, therefore her response to the poll will be weighted as worth 1.2 points while someone who has voted 0 out of the last 4 times will be weighted at 0.8. In this way the final tally will tend to favor the opinions of those folks who have voted in the past and hypothetically better model the election in reality.

A sample of other adjustments

Pollsters have studied their own art extensively. Those like Zogby and Rasmussen have invested millions of dollars trying to guess these elections exactly and make their money by being accurate. Because a phone poll cannot achieve a perfect sample of the population for a myriad of reasons these pollsters make best guess adjustments. Some examples:

-Men are less likely to answer the phone than women. Also, men are more likely to vote. So when a man is surveyed his response is weighted higher than a woman's to model this phenomena.

-The rough guess is that 1/3rd of people under the age of 25 do not have a land line and are beyond the reach of a pollster. Therefore, when a person under the age of 25 is surveyed his/her answer is given greater weight.

-Republicans are more than twice as likely to refuse to participate in a survey than Democrats. So when Republicans are surveyed they're given more weight than Democrats.

-The Democrats have about a 10% registration edge nationally... however, Republicans are statistically significantly more likely to vote. So, the pollster has to decide how to weight these two conflicting inputs when deciding how many registered Republicans and registered Democrats to include in their sample.

-Older voters are more likely to vote than younger voters regardless of history. As a rule, the older the respondent is, the more weight they have in the poll.

-Newly registered voters vote and don't vote very unpredictably. Historically has been excellent turnout and enthusiasm among people voting for the first time in some years and other years it's been very flat. Unfortunately this is almost impossible to predict. In 2000 new voters voted in massive numbers despite no great effort on either party's part to register new voters. In 2004 bother Republicans and Democrats registered millions of new voters and they largely failed to show up! This is a very ticklish element for pollsters to account for because there's just no good rules to follow. Most of the time the surveyor has to use their "gut" and decide how to weight first time voters based on early voting, absentee ballot requests and dead reckoning.

There are literally dozens upon dozens more little adjustments and tweaks that go into a Likely Voter poll. Even the Registered Voter polls will select their sample based on how they believe the Republican VS. Democratic registration numbers will effect their sample. As such there is no such thing as a poll that doesn't have the finger prints of who took the poll.



Okay, you've got the basics of how a poll is put together, and why they're considered more an art than a science. Next I'll apply these lessons to the way that polls actually look in reality, how corruption factors in and who I trust to give me an accurate picture.

Sorry for the long break

Frankly, I had found the campaign becoming boring. It's mostly because Obama was cruising (smartly) and McCain was flubbing (not smartly). However, something came up today. The Rasmussen Poll which I trust to be fairly accurate shows Obama up only 3 points. Now, that's a daily tracking poll that is better used to discuss trends than realities.

Actually, the raw vote isn't nearly as interesting as some of the issue questions. For the first time ever, voters trust John McCain almost as much as they do Obama on the economy (Bill O'Reily is exclusively reporting that tomorrow's poll will actually show McCain ahead in this category). This is a potential problem for Obama. He is winning this election based on folks resenting Republican leadership of the nation in combination with bad results for their pocket books. This element is the most important feature to the Democrat's lead in generic polls. Voters still trust McCain by a wide margin in foreign policy and that advantage has widened over the last month.

However, Obama is slipping on what should be his best issue. Why? Because McCain finally stumbled onto the message that Hillary found at the end of her campaign: Obama doesn't have the experience to handle the economy. The recent discussion of "redistribution" has really hurt Obama. Upwards of 60% of people in an Zogby poll didn't agree with Obama's tax plan. It's a problem for him.

Obama's real problem is that he's not within the of the political norm in suggesting that those Americans making over 250k/year should send checks to those who make less. There has always been some level of redistribution of wealth in the country, and it's a very good thing that there is. However, in America it's usually sent money from the rich to the poor though education, health care and job training... programs that promote opportunities to succeed... not direct, no questions asked hand-outs such as Obama's tax credit ("tax cut for 95% of Americans" despite the fact that only about 50% of Americans pay federal income taxes).

I predict that McCain is still going to lose, it's too late. But, don't expect it to be 7 points and don't go to bed too early Tuesday. McCain's tax policy is becoming more popular and if he can link it to the economy going forward he can hurt Obama even if he doesn't have enough time to actually come back and win.

Okay, you gotta watch this!

This is a traditional dinner. Every October Al Smith's foundation hosts a dinner where in the local DC politicians give comedic speeches/roasts. McCain and Obama both gave a talk. Barack was really good but I have to say McCain was absolutely fabulous. Watch:

McCain
Part 1


Part 2


Obama
Part 1


Part 2

:-)

More on the debate later today. I haven't actually watched it yet... I know bad blogger very bad... Until then enjoy Reuters photography

Obamanomics and McCain's focus on friends

Over the last week both candidates have unveiled slightly different stump speeches and ads. The McCain camp has decided to focus on Barack Obama's associations with radicals in Chicago politics while Obama has focused on blaming McCain for people's economic woes.

Here's a brief run down.

Obama:

What:
He argues that McCain's philosophy of deregulating markets is responsible for the financial crisis.

Why it works:
The Republicans are still seen as the party in power. They controlled the congress and the White House and despite a recent change they still take the blame for bad news.

What he's not telling you:
Both the Bush white house and John McCain sponsored regulation of securities based on home loans in 2003 and 2006 respectively. In both cases those regulations were blocked by Democrats in congress. While it's fair to say that the Republicans did not push hard enough for these regulations, it's untrue to argue that Republicans are, alone, to blame for the lack of regulation. Fact is that Democrats in the house had supporters who were interested in providing low income people with homes. These constituents urged their members to block regulation that would make it more difficult for those low income folks to get a loan. While it's noble to want people to be able to afford a home, when those regulatory proposals were blocked it encouraged sub-prime lending and contributed to the crisis. McCain can't explain that, because it's about 6 steps removed from "they were the party in power so they did it." Unfortunately, while the Republicans have a very good argument that, though good intentioned, the Democrats contributed more to the financial melt-down that Republicans, it just is too complicated for a poor communicator like Bush or McCain to explain.

McCain:

What:
He argues that Obama's associations with William Ayers, Rev. Wright and Tony Resco disqualify him to be president because he's shown a lack of good judgement in the past and is presumably radicalized himself.

Why it's working:
These guys are villains, there's no doubt. Ayers is a self proclaimed terrorist, and Obama did work closely with him on a fairly dubious education program in Chicago. Wright is a radical and he was Obama's spiritual advisor up until those videos came out and to believe Obama didn't know is to believe Clinton didn't inhale. Tony Resco is a felon, currently in prison for being a slum lord, and Obama worked closely with him to help provide housing to low-income folks in Chicago. Among people who don't give Obama the benefit of the doubt it hurts him to be associated so closely.

What he's not telling you:
First, this is Chicago. Obama was an ambitious Harvard grad who was interested in moving up in the Chicago political system. Thing is, these radicals and former terrorists are in control of Chicago. In that way these associations damn Chicago, as much or more, than they did Obama. To succeed in that political environment it requires these deals with bad people. In that way Obama's associations might be dismissed as somewhat less voluntary and more utilitarian than they normally would be. Still bad folks but if Obama was practically interested in moving up the political ladder he had to cow-tow to them... or get out of Chicago.

Second, It's the economy stupid. The real reason that Obama is getting a pass is because nobody cares! The folks are prioritizing their wallets. These associations are just not important enough to move the dial in comparison to those issues where Obama is winning. So it ends up being just so much hot air that is off topic because doesn't address the real issue this year: the economy. It also helps that Obama maintains some of his "well I just like the dude regardless" appeal.

Conclusions:
Despite promoting policies that will objectively hurt any economic recovery Obama is winning the issue. The appeal to folks of goodies given out by the government now with money borrowed or higher taxes has worked. It will keep working for awhile even and our country is prosperous enough to afford a bit more anyway. Still, there will be a few folks out there who get a check in the mail from Obama and laid off in the same month because taxes went up.

I guess the end is that Obama isn't so far to the left or unlikable that he's an unacceptable alternative to the Republican party folks want to throw out of office, and McCain isn't a good enough communicator to change that basic fact regardless of policy. It's not impossible that McCain can manage another surge but I'm not counting on it.

North Korea

As some of you know my interests in foreign policy have focused on North East Asia. Well, something interesting happened. Today the United States removed North Korea from its list of state-sponsors of terrorism.

But, who cares right? Sure they've got nukes, chemicals and germs... but really? Does anybody take these guys seriously? They're always bluffing right?

Right.

They are bluffing. Ironically that's the reason why the Bush administration's decision to remove them from the list of state sponsors or terrorism was wise. North Korea is wacky but is no longer a threat to the United States or its neighbors. North Korea is a basket case, there's no doubt about that. But, once it's understood, its basic policy is that the government wants to be acknowledged as the legitimate sovereign entity in its territory. That's it. It's not terribly interested in southern expansion, it has no current beef with Japan or the US and isn't likely to be a revisionist power in the future.

However, it's government's legitimacy is tied up in opposing the United States and a series of rather over the top ideological goals that make it very difficult for the leadership to act reasonably and still maintain their power over the indoctrinated public. The US wisely offered the North Korean's an out. Make the removal from the list of state sponsors of terror the big win... and the little loss of denuclearization is less important to the people.

So yes, they were bluffing. But it was good that this time the Americans were able to fold anyway. Hopefully the North Koreans can see the benefits of joining the world-system that its neighbor China has enjoyed and become something closer to an oddity than a threat.

Good news everyone!

So I've been thinking about this for awhile and reading more about the market and finance than I ever wanted to in the last few days. There appears to be only one thing on which the experts seem to agree: they don't know what will happen next or when. However, as a rank amateur I am going to make a prediction. Are you ready?

All this stimulus has to have an effect eventually, money is money and it's pouring out of the federal government like it's going out of style. So... it's time to predict a bottom. That's right I'm going for it. Mark your planners it will be at roughly 7600 on Tuesday of next week. Now, don't expect a big ole rally and 1000 points back per day for a week. What I think we will get is a trading range similar to what we saw between 2004 and 2006. It will bounce between 8500 and 10500 for awhile. Then... it's likely to go up. That's when we need to start thinking about inflation and raising rates. This credit crisis averted the inflation crisis... but that problem isn't going away. It's a tough time for markets, no doubt.

I was depressed today

Seriously, the news was full of reports about another 7% loss. 3rd worst day ever only a week or so after the worst day ever? Market down 40% over the last 52 weeks? And this isn't about a few collapsing blue chips - it's about a liquidity trap a la 1929. It's enough to make me wonder how high those windows are on the corner of Wall and Broad...

I do have one thing that's keeping my spirits up though. My favorite, hometown, team shows promise. Check out what former LA times' writer J. A. Adande has to say. Enough to make me smile... even today.

Newest Ads

Obama


McCain

Some Debate Comments

The Worst Debate Ever - Politico
With the country at one of its most interesting — not to mention terrifying — moments in a generation, John McCain and Barack Obama met in Nashville for what was surely one of the dullest and least satisfying presidential debates in memory.

McCain's jabs fall short of Obama - Newsweek via BBC.
John McCain was facing not one but two opponents. One was the Democratic nominee sitting on the bar stool across the red-carpeted stage from him. The other was his own veep nominee - who drew 70 million viewers to her debate against Joe Biden last week.

Paging Rick Warren - Fred Barns of The Weekly Standard

A presidential debate at its best gives voters a glimpse of a candidate's personality, quick-wittedness, likeability, sense of humor, judgment, basic honesty, knowledge, even character. If the debate is a success, voters get a sense of whether they'd be comfortable with the candidate in the White House for the next four years. Voters got none of that in last night's so-called town hall debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. What they saw instead were two presidential candidates mostly on autopilot, repeating whole paragraphs from their stump speeches in response to policy questions. Spontaneity was absent. So was lively discussion.

Stalemate works in Obama's favor - CBS news

An electorate starving for answers to the nation’s economic crisis didn’t receive much nourishment from the two presidential candidates in their second nationally televised debate. Aside from a new-sounding proposal from John McCain aimed at buying out troubled mortgages, both candidates relied on recitations of their stump speeches mixed with fresh empathy to try and convince voters they are best positioned to take over the reins of an increasingly chaotic and unsettled country.

Boring debate ends in bad feelings - National Review Online

This was the worst-moderated debate in the history of presidential debates,” one McCain campaign insider told me just moments after John McCain and Barack Obama left the stage at Belmont University in Nashville. “The audience and the American people should feel robbed — that the one opportunity they had to ask questions of the presidential candidates was taken from them by Tom Brokaw.”

Debate Review #2

BORING

I'm so glad I went to the basketball game last night rather than watch that snoozer. There was nothing to recommend that debate. I heard nothing but talking points for 90 mins. It was like two competing stump speeches. Because the candidates were not allowed to directly engage each other and the moderator was not allowed to ask follow-up questions the whole thing sucked. This debate could have been written from position papers taken from the two candidate's websites. YAWN!

As for the debate's impact on the campaign I think it can't help but be minimal. McCain did have the chance to introduce the line that the financial crisis was the result of a shared set of screw-ups involving both parties. Barack was able to score points on his assertion that the Republicans have a failed economic philosophy. Still, there was no punch. I can't help but think that this was a non-event all told.

The economy still is the #1 issue. Obama wins that issue on fundamentals. So, baring something happening he's winning. McCain did nothing to change that basic calculation last night. So while I think we all lost by having to watch that terrible debate, Obama won by not losing as much... I guess.

A debate? Already?

Did you know? Tonight John and Barack will be chatting with a few dozen voters about this and that. Here are a few things to think about while you are watching.

1) Does McCain criticize Obama to his face? McCain is going to take a page from the Clinton play book and ask "will the real Obama please stand up?" Where as Hillary had trouble with alienating the Democratic base McCain has no such restrictions. He might try to hit Obama on taxes, inexperience and his political allies. All of which could hurt Obama... if McCain does it. The problem is that slinging mud can splatter at close range. McCain has to be careful to keep smiling while being disagreeable. Anger isn't going to play.

2) Does McCain answer on the economy? He's got an old stock answer that ought to work. "He'll raise taxes and that will hurt the economy." Repeat. The other thing McCain can do is explain that he's a regulator and that Obama has sided with those members of the Democratic party that allowed Freddy and Fanny to go under. Of course... Obama can hit McCain by pointing out that Republicans advocated for looser security regulations. See if McCain can stop the bleeding on the economy.

3) When it does get around to Foreign policy, can Obama link it to the economy. Is he able to discuss America's roll in the world and how he's got the answer to help save the globe's economy not just America's. Then, can McCain point out that Obama's anti-trade position won't help and that he's got the experience to get things done.

Prediction: Obama wins. This debate will be about the economy. The built-in advantages to the party out of the White House will trump any good or bad policy. As long as Obama doesn't mess up, and he won't, he can't lose. I believe that McCain can start making the case that his policies are better.... but he can't finish it. McCain's only built in advantage is that he's at home in the town-hall style and Obama can be stilted.

Too little, Too late

I hate it when I'm right. The rescue plan for 700 billion dollars has had an underwhelming effect on world markets. Why? Because it was too slow. The liquidity crisis was and is one of confidence. Nobody was willing to lend money so it all dried up. It's not that the money supply was inadequate, it's that the nerve was missing. The rescue plan had the potential to restore some confidence and prime the pump for creditors to continue lending... if it was acted upon quickly. Unfortunately the government failed and acted too late.

The bailout was meant to prime the pump... the problem was by the time it got there the pump had run dry. Now what was meant as a primer is about the only available capital in the market at all. And as big as 700 billion seems, it's not even close to enough to keep the market moving. The government can't actually raise, print, or borrow enough to do pay for even one day's worth of credit demand in the world. It's impossible. Because we didn't act quickly enough that 700 billion is likely not going to be very useful to the broader economy beyond those specific earmarks and programs that were tacked on as sweeteners to specific congresspeople.

Net effect: bad. This isn't the time to quit your jobs folks. We now have the worst of both worlds, a busted economy stuck in a liquidity trap and future government intrusion into financial markets. Not only do we have no credit, when it does come back it'll be subject to closer inspection by oversight boards that will raise costs and disincentives for capitalists taking risks and investing their money. What a miserable failure of good governance.

This and that

Well I thought I'd be able to have a debate review yesterday. Turns out I still don't know what to think. The problem is that Sarah Palin's appeal escapes me a bit. It's the same problem I had with Obama at the start of this campaign. I couldn't wrap my mind around why people supported him when he so consistently lost on points in every debate. I've mentioned it before, the "eh, I like him/her..." seems to be the most important factor. So while simple scoring of the debate would seem to indicate that Biden won, because Palin was likeable, and didn't screw up she might actually move the dial further. I'm excited to see the polls on Monday... but until then I'm a terrible judge of what might happen. As such, I'm not comfortable speculating.

It should also be remembered that this is the VP debate. Even when Quale had his "you're no John Kennedy" moment the polls hardly moved. So maybe this whole exercise is really not all that important to the process as a whole.

Some sort of good news is that the House finally passed the bailout package. It was so stuffed with pork and "sweeteners" that I can't believe they weren't blushing while voting for it. However, something is better than nothing. The market didn't respond. The conventional wisdom was that the stock prices had anticipated the package passing and didn't go up because it was already factored in. I'm sure that this package wasn't the best thing we could have, but not passing it would have meant another insane blood-letting. Maybe we'll have some stablity in the market now though. It's possible that the worst is over and we'll be able to claw back a bit. P:E ratios are good and by the points we'd expect the market to go up... still it'll take some couragous folks to prime the pump and get it moving.

Ha!

Ad Roll

I'll be doing a rundown of links as well as a more thoughtful break down of the debate after I've had a chance to see how the polls and media have digested it overnight.

Palin vs Biden: First blush

Well, I watched the whole thing. Pretty fun. My first impression was that Biden won the debate. However, I suspect myself of not being a good judge. So much of Palin's appeal is lost on me. Similar to the way I just don't get how Obama casts a spell over such a large number of people by saying nothing. I'm going to withhold final judgment.

Some of the snap polls are indicating that Biden won. These polls are taken among people who say that they watched the whole debate. The methodology on these things is so suspect I'm not sure they're worth anything. Frank Luntz (this link is to his website... the focus group results aren't up yet but I assume they will be.) also ran a focus group of likely voters that seemed to greatly favor Palin. I'm pretty sure that the polling today is totally useless. Unless you're Solidad Obrien, then it's an opportunity.

For now I'll simply use my own tips and give grades based on how well I think each candidate fulfilled my expectations.

Sarah:

1) Answer the questions. Evasion is the worst thing you can do.
She got better about staying on topic but often ignored the moderator. I think that this was strategic decision by the campaign. She was told to just hit her points and ignore the moderator. Her grade would be lower but maybe the campaign is smarter than me. Grade: D+

2) Pause and breath. The rap on you is inexperience, reciting from memory won't help.
She did well here. She started nervously but eventually settled into her element. Grade: B

3) Debate Barack. You've still got more star power than Joe, don't let him take you to his level.
She succeeded here. She stayed on Obama and didn't let Biden bait her. Not that he really tried. Grade: B+

4) Be likable. You're a winner because people like you. Tell a joke, smile and be in good humor.
Again, she did fine. She managed to give out a few zingers and smile. She was likable. Grade: B-

5) Become the "change agent." Debate "Washington," next to Joe people will believe you.
I think she could have done more. The focus on "maverick" over "reformer" I think is wrong. Actually, I'd have her say "change." But, I guess that's a bit too bold. Grade: C+

Over all: B-

Joe:
1) Be kind. You're the sort of guy who can tell, listen and laugh at a joke. Keep that attitude.
Can this guy smile or what? He did very well with his temperament. Grade: A-

2) Debate John. You're the adult. Don't get distracted, there's no need to correct Sarah.
He did get in jabs at McCain, but he wasn't able to really hit him hard. This is probably because the debate really was the Sarah Palin show... so maybe it's not his fault but he still doesn't get great credit. Grade: C.

3) Demonstrate your knowledge. Tell stories about what you've seen/done.
He did this, but it didn't have much to do with Palin. Though he had to get it in. Grade: C.

4) Don't try too hard. Obama they love, you're the insurance in case he can't handle something.
Joe again didn't make himself noticeable on this point and was thus effective. He reinforced Obama and deferred to him. Good for him. Grade: B.

5) Be causal. Sarah's the one on trial tonight, you just need to show up and not screw up.
He was able to demonstrate that he's ready from day 1 and he would be an effective advocate for Obama's policies. Like those policies or not... Biden didn't make himself a problem. Grade: B.

Over all grade: B.

I'm waiting for some more information before I'm ready to decide who really is going to benefit from this debate. Here's what some CNN folks think.

Debate Prep

It's Sarah vs. Joe, here are a few pieces of unsolicited of advice.

Sarah:
1) Answer the questions. Evasion is the worst thing you can do.
2) Pause and breath. The rap on you is inexperience, reciting from memory won't help.
3) Debate Barack. You've still got more star power than Joe, don't let him take you to his level.
4) Be likable. You're a winner because people like you. Tell a joke, smile and be in good humor
5) Become the "change agent." Debate "Washington," next to Joe people will believe you.

Joe:
1) Be kind. You're the sort of guy who can tell, listen and laugh at a joke. Keep that attitude.
2) Debate John. You're the adult. Don't get distracted, there's no need to correct Sarah.
3) Demonstrate your knowledge. Tell stories about what you've seen/done.
4) Don't try too hard. Obama they love, you're the insurance in case he can't handle something.
5) Be causal. Sarah's the one on trial tonight, you just need to show up and not screw up.

Okay, that's it. I'll be here on the blog during the debate, I might even try my hand at "live blogging" so please feel free to comment along with me.

This is why you come to the Blog People

Credit to E-Bomb for this. Now you can play VP debate with your friends at home. It's easy, when the blue guy says the words in blue mark it down. When the red gal says the words in red mark that down. Whoever gets a line, row or diagonal first wins. I still haven't figured out a good drinking game for this though...

Two economists having a chat

It's super long. Here's a table of contents:

A bailout plan written on tissue paper (04:15)
The next shoe to drop: hedge funds (03:33)
Yves is gobsmacked by the irresponsible Paulson bill (10:22)
Why bailouts do more harm than good (10:11)
A short history of risky business (09:15)
So now what’s gonna happen? (09:42)

Sox

The White Sox are my hometown team. Yeah, I know that they're from Chicago. And that I'm from Portland. We just don't have a team though. So I had to look elsewhere. I didn't really look far. After all, my father had me watching the Chi-Sox be bounced from the first round of the playoffs for years... that is when they weren't finishing in the basement of the AL central.

"Come talk to me on July 4th" my grandfather said when he heard that the 'Sox were leading the division in April. More often than not they'd be well behind by September. Well this year they were leading on the Fourth this year and tonight they even managed not to choke a good thing away by beating the Twins 1-0. We're going to the playoffs. My Chi-Sox almost blew it. Almost went home with all the promise in the world and a wasted 162 games. They're still likely to lose in the playoffs, heck 7 of 8 teams do. But, for tonight I'm excited to see a team I root for steal victory from the jaws of defeat.

We're in for a recession. Not like the one in 2001-2 or even the one in 1991-2. We're in for a big one. It's Wall Street's fault, it's congress's fault, it's the President's fault and everyone else to boot. It's not something we had to have, but we failed, and we've got it. Still, I'm hopeful that, like the 'Sox, those who don't give up are rewarded. I root for White Sox like I do for America: it's my hometown team. For America, it's likely that the infamous "well there's always next year" applies more than anything else. Still, the sun will probably rise in the east and set in the west tomorrow and I'm reassured that there will be next year. Tonight, my White Sox rose to the challenge of a challenging time... I sure hope my other home team will do the same.

An' then there was nothing

Today, politics reigned supreme. Today, the need to insult, denigrate and win elections triumphed over the need to govern well. Today, the Dow was down another 778 points causing the loss of roughly 1.2 trillion of dollars of American wealth. It was wealth that was in 401k retirement packages and our banks. It was wealth that allowed us to buy houses and cars. It was wealth that allowed for credit cards and Christmas presents. It was the wealth that funded business loans and created jobs. It was wealth. Now, It's gone.

We had to act quickly. We didn't. All of the protests that this bill wasn't perfect are surely correct... and completely irrelevant. We've now let this go on long enough that by the time we might have a perfect rescue there will be nothing left of the economy to revive. In this case even a bad plan was better than none at all. Everyone who voted against it for political and ideological reasons should be ashamed of themselves.

There's plenty of blame for both parties.

The Democrats did not take this crisis seriously and spent their time packing a simple 3 page (thank you Ariel) bailout plan with so much random and unneeded drivel that the final bill was over 300 pages long. Then Speaker Pelosi gave a speech this morning saying that the crisis was entirely the fault of the Republican party, George Bush and big corporations. This not only alienated the Republicans who were set to vote for the bill... but emboldened Democrats to vote against it for the reasons she laid out! It was a petty attempt to score political points at exactly the wrong moment. Can we safely say now that Pelosi is in the running for the singularly worst congressional leader this country has ever had? She's a wreck!

The Republicans suffered from a lack of backbone and a fit of pique. Yeah, Pelosi's speech was gallingly offensive. But, Republicans should have voted for the bill anyway. It was irresponsible to let that legislation fail. It was immature to stick it to Pelosi with a no vote just because she gave a petulant speech. That little protest's cost was remarkably too expensive. The other Republicans who failed to act cited a constituency uprising. People were shell shocked by the 700 billion number. It's a bunch of money! Never mind that most of it would likely be repaid. Never mind that doing nothing would cost more. Never mind that the financial sector of the economy underpins everything and its failure will hurt every person on the face of the earth. The Mob responded emotionally and called their congress(wo)man to make sure that they didn't have to pay. This response is short sighted and down right ignorant. We have a representative system to make these far-sighted policies precisely because the Mob cannot be trusted. As it happened many congresspeople failed to lead when leadership was needed most andthe Mob forced itself and everybody else to pay much more than a measly 700 billion to cover their lack of courage. Those Republicans and Democrats who calculated that they wouldn't be elected if they voted for this bill are profiles in cowardice. They knew better and selfishly shuffled possible economic ruin onto everyone else so they might come back in the winter and continue their failed political careers.

At this point the damage is done. The only package that would make a difference now would cost far more than 700 billion dollars. There's no reason to bail out a sunken ship. I'm now of the opinion that the market really is now the best corrector of this mess. It was a market failure, we had a chance to mitigate its effects and our leaders failed us. I'm convinced that the time has past and at this point government action will do more harm than good. Our leaders from both parties fiddled while wall street burned... I think I'd rather not suffer the insult of them watering the ashes. It's time for us to take our lumps and rebuild again.

1.2 trillion dollars out of everyone's pocket today. I wonder what will tomorrows toll be?

Candidates in a word

John McCain


Barack Obama

Joe Biden

Sarah Palin

Pew research center did a great poll. How cool is this?

New web ads after the debate

From JohnMcCain.com



From BarackObama.com

Debate links

The AP reviews the debate - It's got a "by line" so I don't assume that this is straight news. Though having read it it's pretty close to fair.

OXFORD, Miss. (AP) - In a faceoff that returned again and again to judgment, John McCain portrayed himself as a battle-tested elder running against a naive rookie, while Barack Obama suggested the Republican is a hothead who made the wrong choices on the Iraq war, corporate taxes and more.

Now they take the themes from an intense first debate back to the campaign trail, looking for some edge in a tight presidential race. With 38 days left, McCain is headed for Washington and the dispute over a Wall Street bailout, while Obama plans to visit Republican-leaning states where the Democrat thinks he can make inroads.

CNN Story - Interesting poll information. Not sure it means anything for sure because of their methodology --still interesting.

OXFORD, Mississippi (CNN) -- A national poll of people who watched the first presidential debate suggests that Barack Obama came out on top, but there was overwhelming agreement that both Obama and John McCain would be able to handle the job of president if elected.

Suzanne Garment from Forbes says we all won

tis the morning after the first presidential debate. Tens of millions of people are delivering themselves of opinions about which senator won, and tens of thousands of them are actually getting paid for it. The instant opinions are almost wholly filtered through the lens of who the opiner wants to win the election. However, it is clear that a big winner has been us, the public discourse, the country. Yes, the foregoing sounds incredibly sappy; but it is probably the most important judgment that can be made about any political contest.

Slate says that the tie goes to Obama - This is becoming the "conventional wisdom" in the media.

We've learned recently that John McCain likes chaos. First there was his surprise pick of Sarah Palin, then there was his hold-onto-your-hats rush back to Washington this week. The first presidential debate could have used a little of that homegrown mayhem. It was a very sober and even exchange with nary a hint of serendipity.

Joe Kline for Time - You'll see this analysis repeated by partisans who favor Obama all week.

Toward the very end of tonight's debate—which was quite a good one, I believe—John McCain laid out his rationale in this election in just a few words: Senator Obama, he said, lacks the "knowledge and experience to be President." The presidency will turn on whether the American people agree with McCain on that—but on this night, Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy ... and more knowledgeable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces.

National Review - You'll see this repeated by Republicans....

Oxford, Mississippi — A few minutes after the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama ended here on the campus of the University of Mississippi, I asked close McCain adviser Charlie Black whether Obama had performed as McCain’s debate team had anticipated.
“No, no,” Black said emphatically. “I never expected Sen. Obama to spend the entire debate on the defensive, and he did. He did.”

Maybe there was a tad of exaggeration in Black’s verdict, but there was some truth in it, too. Obama was smooth, unflappable, and just a little off balance for much of the evening. Worse for him, he seemed inexplicably eager to concede that McCain was right on issue after issue. A candidate determined to appear congenial might do that once, or even twice, but Obama did it eight times.



There are many many more good editorials out there. I haven't seen too many that are polemic either. So go check it out.